On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:17:23PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/11/2015 11:03 am, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 03:15:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>This scarcely counts as a derivation of any useful physics at all, > >>much less of quantum mechanics that relates to observational > >>results. > >It is a derivation of quantum mechanics, from simple assumptions about > >what it means to observe stuff. That quantum mechanics needs > >a correspondence principle to make contact with classical measuring > >apparatuses goes beyond what I was attempting to do. > > But, without this contact with experiment, it is not a derivation of > quantum mechanics. You have merely developed a formalism -- a > formalism that could be applied to almost anything. For example, you > could apply this to the 24 runners in the Melbourne Cup. Each horse > has some probability of winning -- the race is an observer moment > with a set of possibilities consistent with what is known at that > point in time .... etc, etc, etc. So your formalism would apply to > this, as well as to most other things that we experience. There is > nothing in the formalism to distinguish quantum events from anything > else, so it is not quantum mechanics. >
Insofar as the Melbourne cup is describable by quantum mechanics, that is true. If not, then it is not applicable. Probably classical probability theory only works in the special case of observers drawn from a set with positive real measure. Quantum mechanics has plenty of contact with experiment. What I was doing was finding where that mathematical structure comes from. It also points to generalisations - such as non-continuous timescales, and quaternionic measures, that would be interesting to work out what the experimental consequences are. The issue of why classical mechanics "corresponds" via the correspondence principle is not addressed. I think it a very interesting question, and Vic Stenger's work with Noether's theorem is part of the answer. Also Bruno's observation that classical computation (or classical logic) might be a requirement for computationalism is potentially an important hint. But modulo the correspondence principle, the mysteries and counterintuitiveness of QM is well explained - including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle . -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
